What Should Obama's Campaign Be Based On?

One more thing from Elephant Watcher. They have made three scenarios that Obama can take based on how he runs his campaign. I have decided it maybe worth making this poll for you to choose between these three choices. As we all know, the election will cover all subject, but sometimes a candidate focuses on a main subject as the base of his/her campaign. Elephant Watcher sees three possible campaigns Obama can take:

Option 1: "Morning in America"
Obama focuses on the economy. While it is in stagnant, he can make the case that it will get better. Romney will try to argue back, but if Obama can debate well on this subject, the American people will feel safe voting for him.

Option 2: "He Kept Us out of War"
Obama focuses on foreign policy. Obama has had no doubt success in foreign policy and the American people support him. Obama points out that he killed Bin Laden, withdrew from Iraq, and avoided a land battle conflict with Libya. Since Americans are currently in "Dove" mode, they will feel safe voting for him. Obama can make Romney look like a vicious war hawk, ruining him.

Option 3: "Bush's Third Term"
Obama focuses on attacking Romney by comparing him to George W. Bush. Bush left office as an unpopular president so, like he did with McCain, Obama can make Romney look like a return to the disastrous policies of Bush. Romney would have to look different from Bush, but he may not want to upset the Republicans. This will allow Obama to gain an easy victory.

What campaign path should Obama take?

http://www.elephantwatcher.com/p/candidate-rankings.html

I think option 1 would do the best for him, but to be honest, all of them will be less effective with Romney as a candidate.

Well according to Elephant Watcher that is one of the reasons why Romney is ranked at 65% of gaining the presidency and Obama has 35%. Each of these campaigns is difficult. One would actually be the hardest according to them. Two is OK, but not great, as the time is not right for it. Romney does talk hawkish once in a while, but his campaign is economically focused. Something would have to happen in the Middle East like Israel declaring war on Iran or more proof of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

As for three, I picked that one. It is open, but barely. Romney is very different than Bush. However, if Romney picks a VP with ties to Bush, then this choice is even more open for Obama.

Out of the ones listed I would go with option 1.

Edit: I like how you used "Morning in America" (Ronald Reagan) and "He kept us out of War" (Woodrow Wilson) slogans.

He should just talk about on how his policies will come through(regardless of if they will or not) & remind people Romney is a Sleazy Wall Street Vulture.

He has done way better than bush and its silly people expect him to solve all the problems in just four years, espespecialy when the rupublicans veto everthing he trys to do.

Option 1, because that's what most Americans really care about. The average American doesn't care about our foreign policy all that much, and Romney is too different from Bush. But we all feel the effects of a stagnant economy.

Romney just feels more polished than Bush.

I agree, he does. He seems more educated.

Well I feel very different. I think he should go in there a gut Romney with option 3. As I said on the other post. Obama is generally the "default" option. He is the safe one. He can talk about the economy and what he is doing and all that, but the best way he can win is attack Romney and the best way is too compare him to Bush. Romney cannot denounce Bush because the Republicans will get upset. Its the perfect set up.

No its not. It makes no sense. Romney is nothing like Bush. No one would bye that. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe Obama if he compared Romney to Bush.

Some people thought Rick Perry was Bush 2.0, your response?

Okay, that has nothing to do with this conversation. Gov. Perry addressed those claims himself. Bush was privileged. Had a rich daddy, got everything he wanted. Perry has to strive for everything he got. Bathed in a wash tub, first in his family to go to college, etc. There is more to it than having a Texas Accent.

No there isn't.

Aliens?

Anyway, to the original post, I chose Option 2 because I feel it is where Obama has the most ammunition in. Let us be honest here, the economy is still pretty shitty. The blame can be shared with the Republicans, I agree, but no one thinks about that when it comes to electing a president. And Mitt is totally unrelated to the current problem for the most part. And he is the one who is rich and has run successful companies. For him slugging it out with Mitt, I still find that a hard one to go through for Obama, considering the amount of money at the disposal of Mitt and republican Super PAC's for their own attack ads. Any attack on Mitt could possibly bring a consequence of much more lethal attacks ads from Mitt. That, and comparing him to George W. Bush is stupid, considering most media supporting Mitt will just bring up the fact that Mitt isn't even related to Bush in any way.

Now with foreign policy, he has had lots of success to fuel pro-Obama campaign ads. No American boots on the ground in Libya, pulling out of Iraq, death of OBL, strengthening of relations with European countries, not going to war with Iran, but using sanctions to great effectiveness, and no new wars. Of course, the obvious rebuke to this is that no American actually cares about that sort of thing. But Obama can make the connection that with his foreign policy of no wars, the American economy hasn't suffered as bad as it could have. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Mmm... probably #1.

I take issue with the second one because:
1) He didn't kill Osama and the effort was roughly equal between the two administrations,
2) The withdraw was not based on his plan, but that of his predecessor,
3) I don't necessarily agree with the staying out of Libya. I think that it was a good war and the US hesitated when it should not have. In my mind it was certainly better than Iraq and Afghanistan. People argue that the situation isn't going so well and that the government is not all that cooperative with the US and possibly the international community as a whole, but I think that the essential ideas of the revolution were good. My highest problem with boots on the ground there would have been robbing the people of their chance to make their world with their own hands.

#3 is...
Well, you have to try and guage what you think that the common reaction is. Amoung our number, we might look closely at the facts and read between the lines when comparing Bush and Romney. But we have to ask ourselves: does the average American do that? That is the essential question. If they don't, then #3 might have some great success. If they do (which I highly doubt), then it might have a backlash.

Exactly, all Americans are not super smart and I am sure loyal Democrats will be quick to defend the president. After all, wasn't McCain considered a maverick? Yet he was defeated by Obama making him look like Bush. The same can happen here. Romney maybe independent, but I am sure Obama can spin that the governor's policies for the country would be in reverse. What Romney has to do to counter this is go in big detail on the differences of his plan's compared to Bush's.

Well, that is a bulwark he needs to set up quickly.
It wouldn't be hard for President Obama to spin something out quickly.

It should be focusing on the good he's done for America (like Healthcare and shit), blame any failures on the Republic House and the Supreme Court/Bush's administration, and then remind everyone that Romney is a Wall-street Fat cat who lies and shit. Maybe bring up some scandal if they can.

Sounds like you want him to blame everyone in existence, but himself.